Search This Blog

Sunday, December 6, 2015

above: Labor and the Greens can work together; But need to be conscious of each others' electoral imperatives ; Carbon Tax was good policy ; but a 'political death warrant' for Labor

Dr Tristan Ewins

Recently the Australian Greens negotiated a
compromise with the Liberal Federal Government in Australia on the question of
pursuing tax evasion by “Australia’s wealthiest private companies”. ‘The Age’
reported that as part of the compromise “Up to 300 of Australia's wealthiest
private companies will be forced to disclose their annual tax bill for the
first time.”But that the legislation
also will “shield up to 600 more companies that would have been brought under
new transparency requirements.”

Also
considered recently in discussion has been the decision by the Greens several
months ago to agree to another compromise - tightening means tests on Aged
Pensions in order to save $2.4 billion over four years.

By contrast Labor was arguing for reform of Superannuation Concessions
delivering windfall gains to some of the very most wealthy: though arguably
Labor wasn’t considering a broad enough base (including the upper middle class)
in order to bring in serious revenue without need for unfair austerity
elsewhere.

To summarise: Shorten’s plan foreshadowed savings of $14 billion OVER TEN
YEARS.But the Government is facing a
deficit ballooning to over $40 billion a year ; and root and branch reform of
tax is what is necessary – not only to get the deficit under control, but to
pave the way for a reforming Federal Labor Government which actually improves
the social wage, social insurance and social welfare by tens of billions in the
context of a $1.6 trillion economy.

Again by contrast:The deal agreed to by
the Greens with the Liberalshad 170,000
of the most financially disadvantaged Pensioners standing to gain $30/week as
of 2017; But approximately 330,000 (relatively better-off) Pensioners would see cuts through tougher
means tests ; and more than double that into the future.

The
following are some excerpts regarding my thoughts: not only on this specific compromise,
but on the ALP working with the Greens generally.

SL in relation to the Greens ; Is it
right for the SL to Criticise ALP Policy?

At the ‘ALP Socialist Left Forum’ Group we’ve had plenty of debate on
the place for criticisms of the ALP. Should criticism be considered ‘treason’
of some kind? Should we work for co-operation with the Greens – or should we
fight them tooth and nail on account of the threat to several of our most
talented Left MPs ; and the likelihood of declining Socialist Left influence in
Caucus and Cabinet?

Nonetheless: Labor often gets it wrong on policy.For instance, we often pursue symbolic
policies for appearances sake which are far from the ‘root and branch’ reform
needed to serve the interests of our constituents.Shorten’s Superannuation Concession reforms
are very modest , and at this rate Labor will be pressed to pursue extensive austerity
if we regain government. Perhaps regressive policies such as more attacks on
vulnerable groups such as Sole Parents.Or an increase in the Age of Retirement.And yet Labor’s Platform leaves the way open potentially for an
expansion of progressive tax and social expenditure.Labor still has options for a genuinely
progressive mandate.

If as the most significant Left formation in the country (The broad ALP
Socialist Left) we do not criticise our
own party's policies when our leaders get it badly wrong - then who will step
into that space? There are a number of possibilities. Either groups like the
Greens will step into that space ; or because of our silence the Left more
broadly will be demobilised. This would
especially be a threat if the Greens’ tending towards compromise marked ‘a move
to the Centre’ which again would leave a space in the Left of the Australian
political milieu.A new challenger on
the Left of Australian politics could take a long time to re-emerge therefore ;
just as it has taken decades for the Greens to establish themselves properly. This would simply assist the broad Australian Right
in consolidating their hegemony.

Don't get me wrong:...
I'm all for staying and fighting within the Party. But when the Party
leadership gets it badly wrong its up to us whether we vacate that (public)
Left space and/or demobilise the Left - or whether we choose our battles - and publicly
dissent at times – in the context of important debates – such as a much more
robust winding back of superannuation concessions for the wealthy and the upper
middle class.We must do this because
there is the alternative of Left demobilisation. And before we know it even our
own people don't know what we're supposed to be fighting for anymore... (take
privatisation, tax reform, social wage and welfare expansion and reform,
industrial rights and liberties etc)

Insofar as criticism is constructive we shouldn’t just tolerate
criticism of Labor policy - indeed it
must be encouraged.

Nonetheless, the trend towards Labor and
Greens just trashing each other always seems to involve a degree of 'spin' and
is not necessarily 100% honest. What we
need is honest, reciprocal criticism.

There's also the urgent question: What will WE (ie: Labor) do on Company
Tax? Here we really need ALP and Greens to team up and vote down Company Tax
cuts - because that is Corporate Welfare.That is business avoiding paying their share for the services and
infrastructure they benefit from! So
instead ordinary citizens, workers, taxpayers - are left to pick up the tab –
directly or indirectly. (whether with an increased GST, or austerity elsewhere)
Where does Shorten line up on this? (seriously)There are many billions at stake.

More on Greens Compromises

Regarding Greens’ compromises it must be observed: It’s the old dilemma
over whether to compromise and get something 'right here right now' - or
whether to hold back - in the hope of discrediting the Conservatives - and
getting something much better with the next change of government. Labor has
faced these dilemmas itself at times.

For instance, the Carbon Tax was the best policy - but was politically
impossible after Gillard’s commitment "There will be no Carbon Tax in a
Government I lead". The Greens should have recognised this. There were
other options. Like billions in annual direct public investment in renewables
research and infrastructure.In a
convoluted kind of way the Greens’ insistence on the Carbon Tax could even have
been considered an instance of opportunism in its own right.The Greens got their policy – and it granted
them prestige with their constituencies.But arguably it sealed the fate of the Labor Government.This is not to say the Greens shouldn’t press
their leverage to get robust policy compromises from Labor.And arguably Julia Gillard should never have
backed Labor into that corner in the firstplace.But direct investment in renewables
research and public infrastructure would not have involved a blatant,
high-profile broken promise.Of
note:Labor must not back itself into a
corner on ‘small government’ now either!

What Reforms must Labor and the
Greens pursue now as the 2016 Federal Election approaches?

Instead of just positioning against each other with the hope of gaining an
electoral advantage over largely ‘cosmetic’ policies, again Labor and the
Greens should be projecting root and branch reform in any Labor Government
where the Greens hold decisive sway over the cross-benches

More specifically: Labor and the Greens need to move together to secure a minimum
$35/week increase in all full pensions INDEXED upon Labor taking government.
This must include Newstart and Student Allowance. Although I've been arguing for this for years
already and $35/week isn't as much as it used to be. Full indexation is crucial,
and perhaps now the figure should be somewhat higher.(eg: $40/week)

Also in an exchange at the ALP Socialist Left Forum Facebook Group I accepted
the need for subsidies to help the elderly invest in air conditioning and
heating. Increasing the Aged Pension should be part of that. Existing pensions
and payments make insufficient consideration of contingencies which vulnerable
Australians may be faced with.From a
visit to the dentist to having to replace a washing machine – such everyday
challenges can leave our most vulnerable destitute.

Some would call the Greens' compromises through 2015 opportunism. Labor would
attract that claim from the Greens themselves if it was Labor who had made the
compromises. The Greens are trying to shake off their reputation as a ‘protest
party’ – which never has to compromise.Labor argues the Greens are about appearances re: policy protest – but are
not about outcomes.

But there is the argument that some of the compromi...ses the Greens have pursued have
helped the most vulnerable. Though in a way which has hardly been fair to some
people who would not fairly qualify as 'rich'.

There are two sides to this. What matters is that if we get a Labor Government
- and if the Greens hold the cross-benches - there will be no more need for
'compromise with the Liberals'. And in that case we should see the whole policy
schema recalibrated in a way which is truly fair - and doesn't involve
'compromises' whereby one constituency (not really 'privileged' by any
reasonable measure) is played off against another (truly, genuinely
disadvantaged). Better to target the top 15 per cent income and wealth
demographics for redistributive measures aimed at improving the lot of those on
low and middle incomes ; workers and vulnerable welfare recipients.

Target 'the top 15 per cent' as it is
a narrow enough constituency for redistribution to be fair ; narrow enough to
be electorally viable ; and broad enough to bring in serious revenue for
serious reforms....

The problem right now is that most in the Parliamentary Labor Party will
oppose taxing the sole residence of the elderly - fair enough - but they may
not support other progressive measures (as listed) necessary to repairing the
welfare state, social insurance and social wage.

Ideally we should pursue a more progressive tax mix which does not
necessitate the elderly being forced to sell their home towards the end of
their lives when familiarity can be so important. We should hit superannuation
concessions for the wealthy and the upper middle class. We should restructure
the income tax mix radically. We should consolidate Company Tax and begin to
gradually wind back D...ividend
Imputation - which most advanced economies manage to do without. (worth over
$20 billion now)Perhaps we should tax
the banks. And perhaps we should tax the largest inheritances ; and introduce a
Tobin Tax on financial transactions. Finally we should definitely raise the
Medicare Levy - and progressively restructure it into more progressive tiers.

With this we can bring in tens of billions. We can introduce National Aged Care
Social Insurance ; we can implement Medicare Dental, Physio and Optical and cut
waiting lists. We can fully implement NDIS. We can implement Gonski and
transform HECS into a genuinely progressive tax.We can invest billions into social and public
housing, as well as infrastructure of all kinds – increasing housing supply ,
making housing affordable , providing transport and services to new suburbs. We
can revivify Legal Aid, and we can provide Federal Funding for Local Government
- to make Local Government less dependent on relatively regressive levies/council
rates. And we can reform welfare, support payments and pensions and lift the
most vulnerable out of poverty. Finally, we can invest in the ABC and SBS.
That's what we should do ; and it doesn't necessitate driving the elderly from
their homes - even if their homes are valuable. And especially if their
residence is their major asset - and they are not wealthy aside from this by
any reasonable measure.

In conclusion – Labor needs to settle on policies of depth and
substance. Because while ‘cosmetic’ policies may win over some voters – that is
not our ‘reason for being’.Labor should
not be driven by the quest for government purely for its own sake: outside the
context of winning deep, meaningful reforms.Before Thatcherism and the decades-long retreat of the Left there was
reference to the notion of “The Forward March of Labour’.We need to reconceive of our reform
trajectory.Of what comprises our ‘forward
march’ on policies which reform social wage, social insurance, welfare,
personal and collective liberties, the extension of democracy – and more.

And we need to establish our reform trajectory quickly and soon if we are to
have the time and the opportunity to sell such a package to voters ahead of the
Federal Election in 2016.

Thursday, October 8, 2015

above: Stigma is a major problem with mental illness ; But arguably there is another neglected crisis - mental health related life expectancy - which results in hundreds of thousands dying decades before their time...

Tristan Ewins

Last week was
‘Mental Health Week’ in Australia. Importantly this has drawn attention to
related issues such as poverty, stigma and a decades-long crisis in
mental-health-related life expectancy.

According to a study from The University of Queensland and The University of
Western Australia mentally ill Australians are on average dying 16 years
earlier than the general population. This would include sufferers of
Depression, Bipolar, and Anxiety. The study noted that thevast majority of cases of early death actually
related to “physical causes such as cardiovascular disease and cancer, rather
than from suicide or accidents.” Medication can certainly play a role in
promoting obesity – which as noted can lead to heart disease, but also diabetes.

Also despite this, recent research has established that suicide claims
approximately 2,500 lives a year. Proportionately the most likely to commit suicide were
elderly men.

What is more, regarding mental health related life expectancy, “the gap is
growing”. And the figure for sufferers of Schizophrenia – which is estimated to be a minimum of 200,000 Australians(some
say closer to 300,000) – is 25 years.That is, those with Schizophrenia
in Australia die on average 25 years earlier than the general population.

Also according to the UQ/UWA study this result was worse than that experienced by
smokers, and comparable to that suffered by indigenous Australians.Indeed, research on Indigenous Australian
life expectancy revealed a gap of around 10.6 years.The figure for indigenous Australia is of the
highest concern and demands a significant commitment of resources.But the comparison begs the question why
mental health related life expectancy does not attract the
same relative amount of attention given the numbers, and given the dire plight
of those involved. Indeed, both indigenous and mental health related life-expectancy
warrant a very significantly increased amount of resources.

Furthermore the statistics on mental health related life expectancy have not improved in 30 years revealing gross negligence by governments of all
stripes.

In early 2014 Ryan Bachelor of the Chifley Research Centre condemned apparent moves by the Abbott Government to vilify and scapegoat
disability pensioners. This approach was reinforced by a disgraceful campaign by Australia’s Murdoch tabloid press. Bachelor also emphasized that while the figures for the Disability Support
Pension (DSP) were high (approximately 800,000 people), more recently these
figures were slowly declining.The cost
to the Budget was approximately $15 billion in a $1.6 Trillion economy. And the
proportion of Disability Pensioners with a psychosocial disorder was 31 per cent.

Considering life expectancy statistics, no – sufferers of mental illness are
not ‘having us on’ when it comes to the Disability Support Pension.As Frank Quinlan of the Mental Health Council of Australia argued in 2014, many amongst the
mentally ill want to work – but cannot do so on account of discrimination. And
they are also deterred because of severe means testing of their pensions.As Quinlan explained elsewhere:

“The reality of the experience of severe and persistent mental illness is
that it can have a profoundly disabling impact on day-to-day living and social
functioning, leaving some Australians requiring ongoing financial assistance
despite their eagerness to work independently.

It may not be so
popular to draw on Karl Marx in this day and age. ‘Marxism’ as such has been so
distorted by those who claimed to act in his name that many would not give his
ideas a second thought. But Marx’s maxim: “From each according to ability, to
each according to need” should seem an eminently reasonable basis on which to fairly
organize an economy and a society.And
it is a perfectly reasonable basis on which to organize pensions, and the
social wage and welfare system more broadly. This should mean an end to severe means
testing, more positive incentives to find flexible work (rather than ‘punitive
welfare’), emphasis on fighting mental health related discrimination, and
positive incentives for employers to provide suitable flexible employment.

Specifically, Disability Pensioners have trouble maintaining any kind of social
existence; not only because of
illness, but also due to poverty.Poverty means it is often difficult or even impossible to run a car, for
instance. This impacts on ability to even search for suitable work. There’s the
option of public transport ; but that is not always available.This can also make it difficult to keep
friends, or to find friends in the first place. Poverty also makes fitness a
more difficult prospect.Again, ill
health, obesity etc can contribute significantly to early death, while the
mentally Ill need to work so much harder to maintain health and fitness due to
the side-effects of medication.Due to
poverty Gym memberships are generally out of the question.And health costs can also be prohibitive.Consider Dental and Optical just to start.
This affects all pensioners, but the disabled are likely to be dependent long
term with no way out.

Also many
experiencing mental illness are stuck in substandard and insecure accommodation.
Further, not all the mentally ill have support from Carers, and many ‘fall
through the cracks’ into homelessness. A 2002 report had also noted:

“many people with mental
illness are unable to afford stable housing or make their own housing choices,
and frequently have problems accessing appropriate housing and difficulty
maintaining tenancies because of disruptions caused by their illness.”

New Turnbull
Government Health Minister Susan Ley says there are “no easy fixes” and that
the system must “[catch] people before they fall.”(“The Age”, 5/10/15)This implies some insight as to what people actually go through.Though while early intervention is crucial in
preventing such suffering few can really conceive of, healing for the afflicted
is just as necessary.Expecting people
to just “pull themselves together”demonstrates an appalling lack of empathy, understanding and
humanity.So if Minister Ley is serious
she must decisively reject the disgraceful stigmatization and vilification of
Disability Pensioners conducted by the Murdoch Press, and by some elements in
her own party.

We are
yet to see whether or not there will be a decisive change of direction under
the new Turnbull leadership.Resolve to achieve the following will comprise
the degree to which we can judge the extent to which the Turnbull Government is
meaningfully addressing the crisis:

·Increase the Disability Support Pension
by at least $35/week indexed. To begin, this might make it possible to run a
vehicle and to eat better quality food ; Improve support for Carers as well

·Implement anti-discrimination legislation
and provide positive incentives for employers to offer flexible work

·Provide much more generous means-testing
of Disability Pensioners – especially the mentally ill, slowing the rate at
which the Pension is withdrawn ; and make it easy for those affected to
immediately re-access the pension even if they had found full-time work – but
relapsed into illness

·Provide comprehensive Medicare Dental
and Optical – ideally on a universal basis – but if this is not possible under
the current government, then at least offer it to those in poverty, including
those on welfare

·Provide access to ‘physical health case
managers’ – who assist in improving the physical health of the mentally ill – a
dimension which is commonly neglected by mental health professionals

·Provide funding so the mentally ill can
actually act on such advice: subsidised access to health and fitness facilities,
gear and services.

·Condemn any stigmatisation or
vilification of the mentally ill in the media, including the Murdoch tabloids

·Subsidise internet access to help
maintain social-connectedness

·Promote social-connectedness for
inpatients as well by enabling access to internet and social media where viable

·Increase social expenditure on mental
health to make it reflect its proportion of “the country’s health burden”; ie:
raise it from
7 per cent to 14 per cent of the Health Budget ; but
achieve this by increasing the investment; and not through cuts elsewhere

·Finally follow through on the demand by ‘Australians
for Mental Health’: for
“improved access to mental health services, clear pathways for treatment
and support, more early intervention and prevention services, and service
integration”

Again the mentally ill are not
‘having us on’ when some of them can expect to die on average 25 years earlier
than the general population.We have to
hope that the new Turnbull Government will mark a shift in attitude.But what is actually necessary is an increase
in funding for programs assisting the mentally ill.(as considered in the dot points above)We must judge all the political parties and
independents on the basis of action and not just words.

Monday, September 21, 2015

Above: An image of Nils Karleby:Adam Ford's account of 'Socialism as Regulation' has some things in common with the thinking of this important Swedish Social Democrat

Dr Tristan Ewins

Veteran Australian Labor Party activist and blogger
Adam Ford has put forward a critique of socialist metanarratives insofar as
they retain a commitment to what I would personally define as a ‘democratic
mixed economy’. Specifically, by this I
infer a mixed economy including a very robust public sector, but also a broader
‘democratic sector’ including various co-operative models, as well as
co-determination, democratic collective capital mobilisation and so on.Partly in response to my own consideration
of the substance of modern socialism, instead Adam Ford proposes a reformed
socialist project; one which breaks away from prior emphases on Marx, and prior
emphases on public ownership.Ford reserves
the right to define socialism however he chooses, and not necessarily follow in
the footsteps of Marx, or anyone else really.Though in a Bernsteinian fashion (ie: after Eduard Bernstein) he argues that socialism is a premise from
which we depart rather than an ‘end destination’.

“The light on the hill is as a beacon, not a point of
arrival. It guides us forward, rather than telling us where to stop.”

So in its emerging incarnation Adam
sees the concrete form of modern socialism as comprising the quite vigorous and
indeed aggressive regulation of
capitalism.Though he is not very specific in detailing
what form this regulation would take.Nonetheless, perhaps he has something in common with the Swedish
theorist Nils Karleby- who saw
regulation like a peeling away of an onion – where the prerogatives of capital
were progressively removed ‘until nothing is left’. For example: I would speculate that this could
take the form of legislated provisions for co-determination, or industrial
rights including minimum wages and conditions. (though to be honest this is
against the grain of so-called ‘reform of the labour market’ under successive
governments, Labor and Liberal)Karleby was critical of narrow interpretations
of socialism which focused only on
nationalisation.

For Adam Ford ‘socialist outcomes’ do
not adhere to “pre-determined” and “known” “socialist structures”.And rather than comprising an enduring beacon
for socialists, the figure of Karl Marx is seen as imposing a “straight-jacket”
on socialist thought.

Finally, Adam Ford condemns not only ‘command economies’ as ‘stupid’; but he
applies the same judgement to mixed economies where the public sector extends
beyond “natural public monopolies”, and certain essential services and
infrastructure which the market would not provide via its own devices.

What follows is a response to Adam Ford’s arguments.

The hinting of a Bernsteinian angle is appreciated.Bernstein had a lot of relevant things to say
about socialism and ethics, socialism and liberalism, and the notion there no
absolutely-final ‘end point’ for socialism.

Though Bernstein had also insisted of Marx’s theory:

“The fall of the profit rate is a fact, the advent of
over-production and crises is a fact, periodic diminution of capital is a fact,
the concentration and centralisation of industrial capital is a fact, the
increase of the rate of surplus value is a fact.”(Bernstein, Pp 41-42)

Ford is
right to suggest that in Marxism we do not have the meaning of ‘life, the
universe and everything’.Ethics, for
instance, was a blind spot for Marx and many who followed in his tradition and
in his name.As was the tendency of
Marxists – not least of all Lenin – to pose socialism and liberalism
practically as polar opposites.(Whereas
for Bernstein socialism comprised ‘liberalism’s spiritual successor’)
Certainly it is fashionable in this day and age to decry the ‘old’ socialism.
The neo-liberal Ideology remains largely hegemonic throughout much of the
world.Public ownership is seen as an
anachronism.‘The market’ is revered;
‘command economies’ are reviled.And
indeed – even for those proposing a democratic mixed economy, the spectre of
the ‘command economy’ hangs over all debate as if there really is no ‘middle
path’ or otherwise diverging paths from those of neo-liberalism and so-called
‘state socialism’.Though to be fair to
Adam Ford he personally diverges significantly from neo-liberalism in proposing
a thorough regime of regulation.And his
allowance for natural public monopoly puts him at odds with the likes of Mises
or Hayek.

As already observed: Nils Karleby
shared similar notions to Ford in the sense of emphasising regulation as the
substance of socialisation; the means of negating ‘capitalist prerogatives’. Though
Karleby himself had also argued:

“How can one imagine a social transformation other than by the growth
of collective property at the expense of private property, and through
legislative changes together with social and cultural policy measures, and
through changes in property rights brought about by the influence of free
organisations?”

And further Karleby anticipates a

“grinding away of capitalist society in the true sense, a steady
progressive growth of new social forms.”(Karleby in Tilton, p 82)

Hence despite his emphasis on
regulation-as-socialism Karleby does not deny the mixed economy.Though perhaps his position is also
suggestive of strategies such as democratic collective capital formation for
example.

Again: Ford rejects “predetermined” “socialist structures”. Most particularly
this appears to relate to state ownership ; but perhaps it also applies to
collective forms of property posed in opposition to exploitative labour-capital
relations.Though Ford also suggests
“democratic markets”.What could this
mean?

In truth I have considered “democratic markets” myself.But here I conceive of a wide variety of
producer and consumer co-operative forms, as well as collective capital
formation and so on.I think of workers
and consumers organising collectively and co-operatively in the very midst of
markets. And I envisage of the state playing an enabling role here: via state
aid, including cheap credit, tax breaks and so on.

Still - any role for
the state is really the rare exception for Ford.But is a truly robust mixed economy really
“stupid”?

True: Ford and I agree on the need for “natural public monopolies”.Ford is not specific, but for me here I think
of energy, water, communications and transport infrastructure. I also think of
near-monopolies in education.But why
not extend strategic socialisation beyond these strictly conceived
boundaries?Government business
enterprises can enhance competition in areas as diverse as banking and health
insurance; also providing progressive cross-subsidisation where that makes
sense. Dividends can potentially be socialised into the tens of billions
empowering the extension of welfare and the social wage.In areas such as mining partial socialisation
via some ‘super profits tax’ made sense ; but opposition to a direct public
stake here could be seen as Ideological. In any case - even a public sector
mining company would operate in a global and competitive market. As could other
competitive state enterprises.

Furthermore: ‘the market’ could no-doubt ‘find a way’ to intrude upon just
about every facet of our existence. But should we allow for it to do so?Are ‘markets’ and the profit motive
appropriate in Aged Care for example?The public sector needs to intervene where the market fails.And market failure takes many forms. This
includes the lack of democratic forms; the exploitation of vulnerable people; as
well as ‘Planned obsolescence’ and the creation of oligopolies and monopolies
which fleece consumers. Also there is the potential for neglect of consumer
minorities whose ‘market power’ is not sufficient to ensure the provision of
the highest quality goods and services at competitive prices.Perhaps Ford allows for this final case in
his model, however.Though the question
remains: how would that work?

Then there’s also a
case for strategic government intervention in support of
‘multi-stakeholder-co-operative enterprise’. Government has a potentially
progressive role to play in helping to finance co-operative enterprise large
and small.Especially in the case of
large co-operative enterprise large injections of capital may be necessary to
attain the economies of scale necessary to remain competitive on global
markets. This is where government can help.And not only State and Federal government – but regions as well.

Underlying rejections of a larger role for government is the notion that
private ownership is “natural”.It is
considered the ‘default” form of property compared with which the public sector is but a
rare exception.

I reject this notion. But I do suppose a large role for competitive private
sector markets into the foreseeable future.A ‘democratic mixed economy’ is realisable in the foreseeable future in
a relatively modest form. To illustrate: I personally envisage an increase in
public revenues and associated outlays by 5 per cent of GDP – achieved perhaps
over a decade, and flowing in to social wage and welfare provisions.As well as public borrowings for
‘nation-building’ infrastructure.

But ‘autarky’ is not
the answer.As I have argued elsewhere:
transnational enterprises from Samsung to Apple respond to ‘the intricacies of
consumer demand’. And they innovate under pressure in the context of
competitive markets where massive economies of scale are necessary.

Nor should we aspire
to ‘nationalise the corner store’.This
has always gone without saying.Though
small-scale co-operatives could also potentially respond to those ‘intricacies’
at the local level as well; while addressing the alienation many workers
experience where they have little creative control over their workplaces and
their labours.

Australian consumers don’t want to be isolated from the innovations that go on in
competitive global markets. And Australian workers also stand to benefit from
jobs-creating foreign investment.I
accept this. No-one (or at least almost no-one) wants ‘socialism in one
country, Stalinist-style’.We can
gradually build up to a robust democratic mixed economy. But the ‘traditional
socialist society’ as epitomised by the old Soviet and Eastern bloc is ‘lost to
us’.

In some ways this is
actually a good thing.The old command
economies produced a ‘dictatorship over needs’ (Fehr, Heller, Markus) where
‘needs’ were defined ‘from above’ and consumers did not enjoy the freedom to
determine their own needs-structures via markets.Markets can be appropriate to the extent to
which they enhance responsiveness to consumer demand, and reasonably enhance
personal determination of needs structures.

But we should not adopt an Ideological perspective which closes off the
strategic extension of the public sector.Nor should we fetishize markets – especially where they fail.And we should not just jettison the Marxist
tradition in its entirety – when there is such a rich and diverse range of
viewpoints and insights even still. Even
though in today’s more plural Left there is greater tolerance towards the
pursuit of ‘ethical’ or even ‘liberal’ socialism.(a good thing)

We probably can define socialism
‘however we choose’.But we should also
ask ourselves what is reasonable when we return to ‘first principles’.Socialism began with notions of economic
equality; notions of ‘equal association’. There was also the communist notion
of ‘From each according to ability, to each according to need’. And that notion still retains its force
today.Though quite rightly the modern
Left has also considered that economic equality alone is not enough to achieve
‘The Good Society’.A ‘good society’ and
a ‘strong democracy’ needs to include a participatory and authentic public
sphere.It must encompass mutual respect
and free enquiry.It must support
peoples’ need for economic security; but also peoples’ search for meaning in many-varied
ways.Whereas the Left once focused its attentions
on nationalisation too-narrowly, however, the opposite tendency to reject
public ownership as a strategy is itself ‘Ideological’. Democratic socialists
are learning from past errors.But it is
not a ‘clean break’.Our efforts today
should still be informed to a significant extent by past insights, and past
tradition.

Monday, September 14, 2015

Above: Australia's new Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull. Will we see a shift in the Liberal Party towards small 'l' liberalism? This is a letter to the new PM, expressing the hopes, I believe, of many progressives.

Tristan Ewins

Dear Malcolm Turnbull: Prime Minister in-waiting;

The Abbott Prime Ministership is over.Gone now perhaps are the scepticism about
climate change; the bullying of the ABC; the broken promises and blatant
breaches of mandate.The night the
change in Prime Ministership was announced the ABC coverage suggested that you
and Julie Bishop would bring a ‘small ‘l’ liberal’ perspective to the
Government.

Certainly under Liberal governments across the country there
has been cause to fear the withdrawal of civil liberties.In Victoria freedom of assembly was
compromised.Now, though, can we hope
that a Turnbull Liberal Government will recommit to civil liberties; and maybe
even industrial liberties – as a genuine, philosophically-liberal outlook would
demand?

Pluralism is also core to a robust democracy.Tony Abbott attacked the independence of the
ABC; and the independence and/or existence of various human rights
commissioners. And he attacked the independence of charities who took positions
contrary to his agenda.Hopefully this
ends now.But further: what about a
reformed National Curriculum that fosters political literacy and active
citizenship? Not ‘one sided
indoctrination’ – but exposure to the whole gamut of political opinion ;
preparing students to make informed choices as active citizens?

Hopefully under your leadership the Liberals will now remain within their
mandate.No cuts to education, no
changes to pensions, no cuts to the ABC and SBS.

But some of us will be hoping for more as well. The austerity of the 2014
Budget was obviously‘a bridge too
far’.Yet austerity needs to be
questioned more broadly as well.We
already have ‘small government’ in this country by OECD standards.We don’t need to venture further down that
path.We don’t need to bludgeon the poor
and vulnerable any further. Neither do
we need to venture further down the path of privatising infrastructure.A non-Ideological view would be open to a
mixed economy – letting the public sector do what it does best.Though of course as a liberal you want the
private sector to do what it does best as well.

What is more we don’t need to dilute the progressive nature of our overall tax
mix further. Towards the end of his Prime Ministership John Howard made it
clear he believed in the principle of progressive taxation. Mr Turnbull: there is a chance now ‘to break
the consensus’ of ‘broadening the base’ in a regressive way. And if balancing the Budget is a priority,
withdrawing superannuation concessions for the most privileged needs to be
considered first before hitting vulnerable or average Australians. There is an
opportunity to genuinely occupy the centre-ground with a position of small ‘l’
liberalism.

On climate change I understand you are committed against an Emissions Trading Scheme
(ETS) or a Carbon Tax as a condition of many of your colleagues’ support.But what about much more robust ‘direct
action’?What about ‘direct action’ in
the form of a multi-billion dollar investment in renewables research and
renewables infrastructure?This can be
done without a breach of mandate, and without a breach of trust with your colleagues.

Malcolm; On the rights of refugees, Australia can do more.We can do more for Syrian and Iraqi refugees
especially: whose plight has arisen partly as a consequence of earlier
interventions which we contributed towards.The wars in Iraq destabilised the region; they weakened Iraq, leaving it
with a sectarian Shia government; and this emboldened the Iranians with their
nuclear program. This was the background to the Syrian civil war. Sectarian
government in Iraq was also a contributing factor to the Sunni ISIL movement –
which was fuelled by Sunni resentment.

Now minorities and oppressed groups are suffering in a
region torn apart by war, with maybe over 300,000 dead.We can do more and we should do more. And we
can use our diplomatic leverage with the United States and other countries in
the Pacific region to do more as well.On QandA American folk-singer and progressive activist, Joan Baez
pointed out that if the United States accepted refugees on the same
proportionate scale as Germany that this would mean support for some 3 million humanitarian
migrants. For Australia’s part we can
also radically increase foreign aid – such as to assist Syria’s neighbours to
provide for literally millions of refugees.

Finally, here: I don’t often find myself agreeing with Conservative
commentator, Rowan Dean.And I have a
history of supporting non-discrimination in Australia’s humanitarian migration
program.But maybe the argument that
Christians in these war-torn countries don’t have many places to turn within
their region deserves to be considered with an open mind.I’m not saying Rowan Dean is right.I am saying his claims deserve to be assessed
critically, rigorously and honestly.

Malcolm: I hope this doesn’t cause you to discount all that I have to say – but
certainly I consider myself as being on the left-wing side of the political spectrum.
So for instance I would believe in a more extensive public sector than you
would as an economic liberal. Yet listening to John Hewson speaking regularly
on QandA it is evident that the Liberal Party has made a quantum leap to the
Right over the past few decades. Amidst
this, Hewson’s politics have remained steady. For progressives, the hope will
be that a revivification of the Liberals ‘Wets’ faction will see a shift of the
relative centre towards something more compassionate, generous and just. As
well as an outlook which is more tolerant of pluralism, debate and
dissent.Egalitarianism was long part of
this country’s culture, and of our identity.Let’s celebrate that; and let’s not emulate the American ‘Tea Party’
movement with its extreme social Darwinist Ideology.Instead let’s see some policies aimed at our
most vulnerable Australians: those who experience the most intense human
suffering.Get the National Disability
Insurance Scheme done. But what about a National Aged Care Insurance Scheme as
well?

With many others no doubt, I am hoping with your ascent to the ‘top job’ we can
look forward to a new tri-partisan consensus around human dignity and human
rights; and around compassion and respect for the rights of the poor and
vulnerable.Please do not crush that
hope.

(nb: the author is still Labor to his bootstraps ; but consensus in areas of progressive public policy should be what we're hoping for as well - a shift in the relative centre)

THE RED FLAG IS STILL FLYING HERE

INTERESTED IN SPONSORING THIS PAGE?

This blog and several other websites are maintained by Tristan Ewins for nothing in return. But I would greatly appreciate any progressive sponsors. This page and others I maintain attract many thousands of visitors every year. Some posts even attract over 1000 readers on their own. So in return for a significant donation your Advertisement or Message could appear here and at my other pages! That is: assuming you support the blog and its message, as well as other sites where your message could appear. Contact me at the following email if you are interested:tristane@bigpond.net.au

Total Pageviews

About Me

Tristan's areas of expertise include Australian and world politics, social theory, education, history, and computer gaming for PC. He considers himself a liberal, and also a socialist, but has also referred to himself as a left social democrat. He says such - conscious that there was once a time when 'social democracy' and 'socialism' were synonymous. Furthermore, Tristan is a long-time member of the Australian Labor Party - specifically its Socialist Left wing. He is also involved in the Australian Fabian Society. Tristan has written for many publications - including a stint freelancing for 'The Canberra Times': the daily broadsheet of the Australian Capital. Tristan's Personal Homepage is here: http://sites.google.com/site/tristanewinsfreelancewriter